Resistance to Change

Organizational change efforts will certainly face human resistance despite whether it is a government organization or a private company. Sometimes a leader or a manager may just apply a very simple belief. In the case study, John Allen, Chief Executive of the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) is proposing a radical reform the ministry. The SSC report on MFAT as part of the Performance Improvement Framework (PIF) unravels that MFAT’s management needs to be improved and revised especially in terms of “vision, strategy and purpose,…, values and engagement with ministers.” The PIF review shows a wide range of factors which may challenge the organizational development and management of the ministry. Allen decides to lay off 305 out of 1340 staffs in order to reduce the number of people who are underperformed. However, it seems that he receives a lot of resistance from MFAT partners in the ministry. In this short essay, people who are opposing the change and the reason why they are so strongly against the reform will be explained in details. Besides, recommendation will also be proposed in order to promote organizational change smoothly with the assistance of Kotter and Schleisinger’s 6 Change approach.

Change initiatives often backfire because managers or leaders tend to apply a one-size-fits-all approach in initiating a planned in a particular company or an organization. But individuals may react very differently, sometimes out of expectations, to such changes. They may resist change ranging from passively resisting to aggressively trying to undermine the changes. According to the case study, MFAT partners especially its overseas diplomats are those who strongly oppose the proposed changes. Allen’s reform proposal is to “cut 305 jobs and require another 600 staffs to reapply for jobs in new specialist roles.” It is understandable because he tries to reduce unperformed or underperformed staffs in order to enhance the organizational effectiveness and efficiency of the ministry. However, he does not realize that it hurts the interests of overseas staffs because they sacrifice their time with families, friends and children to fulfill their diplomatic tasks. When they are told that their offshore allowances will be reduced and they may even lose their jobs, it is highly predictable that the overseas staffs will certainly become angry about the proposed reform. Even worse, local MFAT staffs may also refuse to take an overseas mission as they witness how the overseas diplomats are treated. “Two-third of Wellington-based staff” tells the press that they are “less likely” to consider an overseas posting. Some of them even consider to resign their current jobs.

Reasons

People may different reasons to resist changes. Some resist changes because they desire not to lose something of value. Some may have misunderstanding of changes and its various implications. Some do not support changes because they believe that changes do not make any sense to improve the organizational effectiveness or performance of a company or an organization. Last, some people may be mentally against changes because they prefer stability or have low tolerance to changes. In the case study, it is obvious that both overseas and local staffs are against changes because it hurts their interests.

Six-change Approach

However, as a matter of fact, even though John Allen is facing a lot of resistance in the process of initiating organizational change, it does not mean that MFAT should stop the proposed reform. Kotter and Schlesinger (2008) accurately predict the resistance and proposes a famous 6-change approahces to counter such resistance. The 6-change model includes  1. Education and communication, 2. Participation and involvement, 3. Facilitation and support, 4. Negotiation and agreement, 5. Manipulation and co-option, 6. Explicit and implicit coercion.

First, resistance to changes can be broken down through effective education and communication. Sometimes the resistance to changes arise when there is a lack of information and analysis. One of the best way to overcome this problem is to educate people about why it is necessary to perform the changes. When MFTA staffs understand the logic in the proposed change effort, they may start to agree that the Ministry should have the change.

Second, Participation and involvement is also necessary and important for implementing changes. When MFTA partners, diplomats  and staffs feel that they are involved instead of being neglected, it is more possible for them to buy into change rather resisting it. In the case study, MFTA staffs are not consulted enough before knowing the proposed. It is also the major reason why the resistance is strong.

Third, MFAT should also provide facilitation and support. Allen as the manager should head-off potential resistance and help his employees to survive during the difficult times. As the aforementioned, it is not so advisable for simply cutting or outsourcing the jobs. Overseas diplomats who are in the lay-off list should be compensated well. From Exhibit B, it is very clear that MFTA partners are very much concerned about how they can be compensated such as being “a key stakeholders in the future MFTA”. Allen and MFTA should learn deeply about how to provide supports to them.

Fourth, Negotiation and Agreement is also necessary in the whole approach. Someone or some group may lose out in the change process but they may have very strong power to resist the change. In other words, MFTA should provide sufficient incentive for them to agree with the change. Usually in a private company, early-retirement package are given to senior employees who should be laid off. MFAT should also follow suit. Both MFTA and the lay-off employees should reach a mutual understanding and agreement before implementing the actual changes.

Fifth, Manipulation and co-option are also required in the process. Kotter and Schlesinger (2008) also suggest that one effective manipulation technique is to co-opt with resisters if other tactics are very cost-expensive or ineffective. For instance, leaders of the resisters can be invited to participate the change effort. It does not mean that these leaders have a great contribution to MFTA but the followers may feel that the change is highly favorable as their leaders start to accept the change. Leaders of the resisters can be provided with additional rights and benefits under the manipulation and co-option approach.

Last, Explicit and implicit coercion should also be exerted to the target group. Allen, as the manager of the change, should accelerate the whole change process by explicitly and implicitly force MFTA staffs to accept changes otherwise it may lead to losing jobs, promoting opportunities or their future career development.

Reference

Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard business review.